Building new gas-fired power plant is vital for energy security, according to firm
Plans have been submitted to create a new gas-fired power plant to the northeast of Peterhead.
The facility would be built next to the existing one and use carbon capture to reduce its emissions.
Climate campaigners have questioned the need for a new fossil fuel-powered plant and argue that the focus should be on publicly owned renewable energy instead.
The current owner of Peterhead Power Station, SSE Thermal, says it is coming to the end of its engineering life and needs to be replaced.
Finlay McCutcheon, managing director of SSE Thermal, said: 'They do have an ultimate economic, technical life and they will need to be replaced.
'That's why we at SSE want to build new, replacement power stations that are either abated and decarbonised from day one, which is what we want to do at Peterhead or on a clear pathway to decarbonisation in the future.'
The current power plant is one of the biggest polluters in Scotland but those behind plans for the new site say using carbon capture technology could reduce emissions by more than 90%.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) created at the plant would be captured, transported to nearby St Fergus at the Acorn project, before the CO2 is pumped out to the North Sea by pipes and stored around 2.5km under the seabed, in a process known as CCUS.
However, the delay in the advancement of CCUS means a closure date for the current plant has changed from 2030 until the middle of the next decade.
The two sites could also operate side-by-side until 2040, in a 'worst case scenario', according to SSE Thermal.
The plans are currently with the Scottish Government, and it will be for ministers to decide if they get the go-ahead.
Climate campaigners have urged the Government to reject the proposals.
Rosie Hampton, of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: 'What gives us real energy security is publicly owned renewable energy that isn't tied to the volatile international prices of gas and can bring down bills for people whilst also making the necessary energy transition that we need.
'When we think about what delivers for people in the North East of Scotland and the rest of the country, we're looking at things like wind, solar, direct electrification, we're not looking at power stations.'
However, SSE Thermal argues that gas-fired power stations will still be needed even during the transition, when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine.
The current plant has been in operation for more than 40 years.
Although its role has changed, when it first started working in the early 1980s, it operated at near full capacity for most of the year.
Now, because of the increased use of renewables there can be several days at a time when it isn't generating power.
A recent updated environmental impact assessment (EIA) of the new power plant says estimated emissions over its lifespan have increased by around threefold from the original estimates.
SSE Thermal said the direct pollution from the proposed plant hasn't increased.
The firm's MD said: 'We've updated that to take into account the upstream emissions from the gas that we will use for the new power station.
'What hasn't changed is our assessment of the direct emissions from the power station, that remains exactly the same.'
Friends of the Earth Scotland said more than 1,600 people and 30 organisations objected to the plans in a consultation on the updated EIA that closed this week.
The current plant employs around 80 full-time staff, and it's estimated that the new site will employ around 240.
Jennifer Hemmings has worked at the power plant for four years and believes a new station is vital for the area.
'I think it's very important for me in terms of things like job security and as well for myself moving into a more greener kind of job,' she told STV News.
'I think it would mean job growth, especially in the development phase, when it's getting built, lots of local work.'
The Scottish Government said it would not be 'appropriate' to comment on a live application.
'A decision will be taken by ministers in due course, following consideration of the application information, consultation responses and representations made by members of the public,' a spokesperson said.
Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
The government must ensure the promise of free childcare is delivered
Takeup of the government's offer of free childcare has been one-quarter higher than predicted, which has prompted some voices in the sector to warn of its imminent 'collapse', because it is unclear how the planned expansion of the scheme in September will be funded. Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, in an exclusive interview with The Independent, says the unexpectedly high numbers signing up for the scheme is a 'good problem to have'. There is no doubt that there is a problem, however. The higher takeup meant that the Department for Education spent £2bn on the scheme in the last financial year, covering most of the first year of the Labour government, rather than the planned £1.6bn. That gap was covered by additional funding announced in the spending review in March, but as we report today, the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that the gap will continue to widen as the scheme expands. The next expansion will happen in September, when working parents with children aged nine months and older will be offered 30 hours a week of 'free' childcare. Of course, the care is not 'free' in that it has to be paid for by taxpayers generally – on the grounds that helping the parents of young children to work is a public good. As Ms Phillipson puts it: 'If people are able to work, or work a few more hours, that helps us all as a society as well and it gets economic growth going.' The funding of the scheme will continue to be under pressure, but the most important fact about the scheme so far is that it has not collapsed. The Independent was among those voices warning that it had been underfunded by the Conservative government, but to its credit the new government has increased the money available. The finances of the scheme may be stretched, and many childcare providers continue to say that they cannot recruit enough staff at the wages they can afford, but the gloomier warnings of chaos and thousands of parents left without places have not yet been borne out. It is crucial to remain vigilant as the scheme expands so that remains the case. At the insistence of Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor in the previous government, the scheme was designed to start small, with a limited offer of free hours to older children, before expanding gradually to provide full coverage. This September's expansion is the final stage of that planned rollout, which so far has gone more smoothly than we expected. If the last stage is a stretch too far and some parents cannot immediately find the places they want, that would be a blow to the government's ambitions. Ms Phillipson is right that the problem facing the scheme in its final phase is the problem of success. The higher-than-expected demand means additional pressure on the public finances in the later years of this parliament – pressure that coincides with other increased demands on Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, from slow growth, higher interest rates and a government U-turn on disability benefits spending. Providing greater access to free childcare is a good policy that will help working families. Its success and ambition should be applauded. The government must now make sure that its expansion is a success.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Why didn't the SNP act when they had power in the UK?
As I have said many times in these pages and to SNP leadership, when we had a majority of SNP MPs at Westminster, and were the third-biggest party there, that if the FM spent less time strutting around like a world leader, distracting from the job at hand, and allowed the SNP group at Westminster to actually do their job, we could have had either independence or another referendum by now. As I said, in my simplistic view: 1. In 1707, it was Scottish parliamentarians who voted to unionise with England, not through a referendum or public opinion which was very much against it at the time. 2. The [[SNP]] in 2011 achieved what was meant to be improbable, due to the way the proportional representation system was set up at [[Holyrood]], and won a majority. Independence polling was in the low 30% at the time and [[Westminster]] thought they would lay to rest once and for all Scottish independence and reset the narrative. READ MORE: 'Not in our name': Hundreds gather in Scottish cities to protest Donald Trump Scots sensing freedom rallied around the cause as the polls rose, only for Westminster to panic and reach out to the vast Union media to spread doom and fear about Scotland's chances to surviving on its own (see point 5). Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon were not prepared for the referendum fight that ensued, failing to deliver on the big questions in debates. Which isn't surprising because the [[SNP]] were probably taken aback when David Cameron said yes to a referendum, the [[SNP]] hadn't done all the preparative homework (ie currency, pensions, trade, the border, etc) to allay the fears of Scots never mind that of Scottish businesses and institutions. Even now, they are not prepared 11 years on and the SNPs hierarchy of 'it's my way or the highway approach to independence' is a flaw in their DNA. Scots' democracy is a consensus-based system, that's how the convention brought about devolution, and it's about time the SNP woke up to this fact. The SNP hierarchy don't even listen to their own rank and file or their activists! Even Swinney's recent independence reset is so bland, it wasn't worth the airtime. The concern of independence voters is who will be their political voice, certainly not the SNP at this time, the reason more than half a million voters failed to vote for them last time not many of these voters jumped the divide to Labour if you look at the voter breakdown. Worrying times indeed for both the SNP and independence voters. The independence voter churn is likely to continue. (Image: PA) 3. [[Westminster]] and the House of Lords (monarchy) demand power and obedience to rule which make the privilege richer and give the middle and lower classes just enough to keep them in line. So, the [[SNP]] need to be strategic and be prepared to gamble all to deliver independence. They had a whole parliamentary term when they were in the ascendancy to do this and failed miserably, partly due to internal squabbling at [[Westminster]] and interference from the FM and the FM's inner circle who acted as though [[Holyrood]] had political precedence and would deliver independence. Oh how wrong this attitude was, and it's been a slippery downward slope ever since. The best they could do was ask 'please sir can I have one more referendum?' and their reply was 'more, you had your day and the people of Scotland voted to remain, now is not the time for another referendum'. 4. At this time, the SNP should have shaken this up by electing a 'majority Scottish leader' at Westminster. Reintroduce the Scottish Grand Committee to review all Westminster's reserved matters like the constitution, eg another independence referendum or to vote on the impact of Westminster land-grab legalisation the 'Internal Market Act'. To vote on these and relay to the speaker of the house and the government the Scottish MP majority outcomes are token and disruptive gestures maybe, but it does echo the Scottish electorate will to the Parliament. More importantly, at this time the UK was out of Europe, a fundamental material change from the referendum debate of 2014 where membership of the European Union was one of [[Westminster]]'s key fear strategies, and from a democratic perspective, the [[SNP]] were the third-largest party at [[Westminster]] (unheard of achievement), the biggest party at [[Holyrood]] and biggest party of elected councillors in Scotland. If I was in charge at that time, I would have given the Westminster government the simple either/or ultimatum; to grant a second referendum or Scotland will unitarily leave the Union based on the elected mandate. The latter throwing the UK into a constitutional crisis, spooking the Bank of England (not UK!) and the financial markets. I am sure this would have led to a lot of activity behind the scenes as when the city of London catches a cold, Westminster sits up and takes note and then there is the probable granting of a second referendum. As I said, gamble big, better than the limp approach to the English Supreme Court approach! 5. Many countries have successfully left British rule and never looked back. As stated at point 1), Scots parliamentarians decided to join England in an Union, so it is not unrealistic to do the same in reverse, irrespective of the language of the treaty. Labour rules the UK with only 33.7% of those voted, so having greater than 50% is not necessary. Also, when a small group of Tory MPs like the 1922 club can oust an elected leader that won them a general election, it just goes to show how democracy works for English privilege and not for the democratic masses, like for Scotland. Also, when a Westminster party comes to power, there is no penalty or forfeit for not following their manifesto, so just because the SNP manifesto didn't explicitly say Scotland would leave the UK, anyone that votes for the SNP knows their DNA is independence, so shock horror if they deliver on it. From an European perspective, precedent was set when the Slovakian party announced the dissolution of Czechoslovakia, resulting in the separation in 1992 and the resultant independent sovereign states of Slovakia and Czech Republic where future EU ascension wasn't an issue, so why would Scotland's independence be a roadblock to independence or EU ascension, certainly not now after Brexit? A Wilson Stirlingshire THE Government has recently announced changes to the Contracts for Difference scheme, with a view to speeding up the development of renewable energy projects across the country. One of the new changes to the scheme is to extend the length of contracts for onshore and offshore windfarm project development. This provides an incentive for developers bidding for new contracts, as it gives them more time to recoup their costs. The new cycle for applications to the scheme opens on August 7, 2025. This incentivising highlights the point that Pat Kane made in his article on July 12, titled 'Scotland is heading back into a cycle of 'extraction without consent'', that after oil comes wind power. He also made reference to Lesley Riddoch's equally excellent article of June 19, about the multiple windfarm applications which are currently being made across the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. Kane reflected back to a time when the play, The Cheviot, The Stag And The Black, Black Oil, by John McGrath dramatised the issues surrounding oil extraction in Scotland's waters, and went on to ask rhetorically, 'What kind of single dramatic 'representation' could take purchase?' in relation to the issues surrounding renewable energy generation in Scotland today. He lays down the gauntlet when he suggests that: 'Creatives worth their salt should rise to the challenge'. In the comments section at the end of his article, I did point out that in terms of dramatising the issues surrounding renewable energy being generated in Scotland, much of the problem creatives like myself face is getting our work heard. It's not that we are not offering a commentary, or perspective, on these issues, but without the following which the celebrity cult seems to generate in today's publishing world, it is hard to get your work noticed. Oblivious as to whether or not I am one of those who are 'worth their salt', I had just started the process of uploading, finalising and then releasing my latest humorous novel, An t-Eilean Dorcha (The Dark Island) at the time of his article. This was finally released in paperback on July 21 on Amazon. The novel focuses on a renewable energy project which is proposed for a small island, and the community has to evaluate its impact and consider how best to respond. My hope is that as well as providing the reader with some light entertainment and an escape from their day-to-day life, it will also, give voice to the very real concerns people have expressed about renewable energy resource generation in the Highlands and Islands. Gordon Ian MacLeod via email MUCH angst has been expressed recently about the high cost of electricity in Scotland. Hardly surprising in the UK's cradle of green, affordable generation. Disgruntled consumers may hold meetings, march, post banners and write letters – all protesting against high charges. The privatised electricity companies will ignore them, assuming that people will pay up for this essential necessity; and most probably will. In 1915, at the height of the First World War, greedy landlords in Glasgow increased rents beyond what was reasonable. Already poor people were incensed, but didn't know what to do about it. That is until local woman Mary Barbour stepped in and created an army which united in a rent strike. They surmised that if they hit the landlords in their pockets they would soon begin to squeal – and indeed it was not long before they did back down, realising that some rent was better than none. All the passive actions I mention above will not disturb the power companies one iota, so I suggest that folk in the Highlands and Islands emulate Mary Barbour's army, and refuse to pay their electricity bills en masse until they are charged the same per kilowatt that Londoners pay, backdated to 2020. Yes, the companies will hold out for as long as possible, they will take a few people to court, and as with any strike there will be folk who capitulate. But with solidarity, mutual support and determination, I believe the people will prevail. Richard Walthew Duns THE article in the digital edition reporting on the sale of an estate near Fort Augustus indicates that there will be a lot of interest from overseas. If this parcel of Scottish land is sold to an overseas buyer then there should be a hefty tax burden on the buyer and they should only be allowed to purchase it if everything is transparent so that the people of Scotland know who owns the land that should belong to the people of Scotland. Audrey Maceachen via email YOUR article on the electric super highway mentions a subsea cable from Fife into England. Meanwhile, Scotland is faced with giant pylons ruining the land? Our 'green' electricity, for which we are charged extortionate rates, being fed into another country. Has Mr Swinney and the [[SNP]] anything to say in this? Or is this robbery getting the silence that Grangemouth got. Jim Butchart via email
South Wales Guardian
2 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Donald Trump goes golfing as protesters speak out against his visit to Scotland
Tight security around the Trump Turnberry course meant no demonstrators were seen when the president took to the greens on Saturday morning. Dressed in black, with a white cap that said USA on it, Mr Trump could be seen driving a golf buggy, flanked by a fleet of security personnel, as he played on the famous course which he bought in 2014. The outspoken Republican waved to journalists at one point, with hits including Billy Joel's Uptown Girl and Elaine Paige's rendition of Memory from the musical Cats heard playing from his entourage. But when asked about links to disgraced paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, the Simon and Garfunkel hit Bridge Over Troubled Water could be heard. However hundreds gathered in both Edinburgh and Aberdeen – near the site of Mr Trump's other Scottish golf resort – to make their opposition to the president known. As the visit got under way Scottish First Minister John Swinney – who is due to hold talks with the president later in the trip – announced public money to support a tournament at the Trump International golf links in Aberdeenshire. The 2025 Nexo Championship – previously known as the Scottish Championship – is set to take place there next month, supported by £180,000 of public funding. Mr Swinney said: 'The Scottish Government recognises the importance and benefits of golf and golf events, including boosting tourism and our economy.' But Scottish Green co-leader Patrick Harvie likened the awarding of public cash to the tournament to 'handing some pocket money to the school bully'. Mr Trump will head to his golf resort in Balmedie, Aberdeenshire later on in his five-day long private visit. As part of his trip he will also hold talks with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, where the two men will refine a trade deal between the UK and the US that was agreed earlier this year. The president is also expected to talk trade with European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen on Sunday. But with no talks apparently scheduled for Saturday, the president, who is well known for his love of golf, was free to take to the famous course at Turnberry. A major security operation surrounded him, with police officers and military personnel seen scouring the grounds ahead of Mr Trump teeing off. After touching down in Scotland in Air Force One on Friday night, the president was seen on the course at Turnberry on Saturday morning – although security fencing had also been erected around the resort, with road closures also in place to help protect Mr Trump, who last year survived an assassination attempt. Sniffer dogs were seen patrolling the golf course, with the Navy carrying out sweeps in the water beside the seaside course, while Army vehicles were spotted on the nearby A77 road. Police Scotland has asked for support from other forces across the UK to bolster officer numbers for the high profile visit – with Mr Swinney appealing to people to protest 'peacefully and within the law'. In Aberdeen Green north east Scotland MSP Maggie Chapman told the crowd of hundreds: 'We stand in solidarity not only against Trump but against everything he and his politics stand for.' Speaking about the US president, Ms Chapman said: 'He believes that climate change isn't real, he believes that cutting services for those in the world with the least is the right thing to do. 'We say no to all of those things, not in our name, never in our name.' With Mr Trump having last year been convicted by a New York jury of falsifying business records, she said the president was a 'convicted felon'. And she told the PA news agency: 'He is not welcome in Scotland, he is certainly not welcome in Aberdeenshire. 'We know that he is a convicted felon. 'We also know that all of the promises he has repeatedly made to Scotland have come to nothing, there hasn't been the development of jobs or houses that he promised when he opened his course in Aberdeenshire a few years ago.' Mr Harvie was also critical of the president, telling PA: 'He's attacking our renewables industry once again, one of the success stories of Scotland, and he is trying to attack and undermine it. 'And that is after having trashed part of our natural environment on the Aberdeenshire coast to build his golf resort.' Anita Bhadani was one of those who organised the Stop Trump Coalition protest outside the US Consulate General's office in Edinburgh. She told PA: 'We are really excited, across this whole weekend, there's so many campaign groups turning out in the streets, tacking in action in their communities or at rallies like this – it's kind of like a carnival of resistance.' She said Mr Trump's 'huge promises' of creating thousands of jobs through development around his Scottish golf courses had not come to pass. A number of speakers addressed the crowd, condemning President Trump, including one who chanted 'death to the IDF'.
